Italics indicate direct quotes from the application. Typos, including punctuation errors, come from the original application even though we have not inserted “(sic)” after each one. WJI has left them as is.
Name: Jeremy J. Guza
Appointed to: Waukesha County Circuit Court
Appointment date: July 3, 2026, to term ending July 31, 2027
Education:
Law School – Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Undergraduate – University of Wisconsin-Platteville
High School – Blair-Taylor High, Blair, Wisconsin
Recent legal employment:
January 2020-present – Attorney/owner, Guza Law Office LLC, Sussex, Wisconsin
July 2017-January 2020 – Veterans service representative, Department of Veteran’s Affairs, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
August 2014-July 2017 – Attorney/owner, Guza Law Office LLC, Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin
June 2014-August 2014 – Associate attorney, Kratz Law Firm, West Bend, Wisconsin
Military service:
I served in the Army National Guard from 6/03 to 6/10. I was inactive National Guard from 6/10-6/11. My unit was activated to active duty ARMY from 6/04-11/05 for training and missions in Iraq. I chose to not renew my contract with the National Guard in 2010. At that time I was an ES, Sergeant, and near the top of the promotion list. I received an Honorable Discharge.
Bar and administrative memberships:
State Bar of Wisconsin
General character of practice:
I am a criminal defense attorney practicing primarily in Waukesha County. I’ve taken Public Defender work in multiple counties throughout the state including Trempealeau, Juneau, Sheboygan, Fond du Lac, Manitowoc, Washington, and Ozaukee Counties. Previously, I handled divorce and child support cases, revocation hearings, Chapter 51 commitments, and Chapter 55 Guardianship hearings. I’ve also been co-counsel on a civil matter involving a non-compete agreement. I have been solo trial counsel on multiple criminal trials spanning from 1 to 5 days long.
Describe typical clients:
My typical clients are criminal defendants, usually with pending criminal charges. I haven’t specialized in any area of law, but my primary focus has been on criminal defense including homicide, OWI, drug dealing and drug possession, retail theft, domestic abuse cases, civil ordinance violations, and traffic tickets.
Number of cases tried to verdict: 6
List up to three significant trials, appeals, or other legal matters in which you participated as a judge or lawyer in the past seven years:
In 2021 I was solo defense counsel on a Len Bias Homicide in Washington County in front of, now retired, Judge Todd Martens. . . . This case involved a drug delivery homicide of a novel synthetic opioid that was quickly put on the temporary drug schedule in the Wisconsin Statutes. The drug itself was not listed in the Statutes as an illegal substance at the time of the delivery. This was a difficult case for all involved because a young adult had lost their life due to drug usage, yet that drug usage may have been due to a, technically, legal substance at the time of use. I believe that this is a significant case because it demonstrates my ability to operate in the gray space between what is right, what is legal, and what is just.
In March through July of 2021 I was, again, solo defense counsel on a Len Bias homicide; but this time it was in Waukesha County in front of Judge Arthur Melvin. Opposing counsel was District Attorney Sue Opper. I filed a Denny motion regarding a possible 3rd party suspect which, although I was unable to identify, police should have been able to identify. The motion was never heard in front of Judge Melvin as Attorney Opper dismissed the case before the motion could be heard. This case was significant because the police elicited a confession from my client that he had sold drugs to the co-defendant, yet, with overwhelming evidence that there was likely a third party that actually delivered the drugs, and not my client, District Attorney Opper did the correct thing and dismissed the case. It is rare that a homicide is charged and outright dismissed without a jury trial or a plea agreement.
From September 2022 through August 2023, I served as co-counsel for the defense in a First Degree Intentional Homicide case in Juneau County Circuit Court before the Honorable Stacy Smith. . . . My involvement included pretrial preparation, litigation of constitutional search-and-seizure issues, participation in evidentiary hearings, and briefing related to the admissibility of evidence obtained during a warrantless search. A central issue in the case was law enforcement’s reliance on the community caretaker doctrine as justification for the search. After multiple days of testimony and briefing, the court ultimately upheld the constitutionality of the search on alternative grounds. This litigation was significant because the case arose during a period of substantial change in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. At the time of the search, law enforcement relied on the community caretaker doctrine as a recognized basis for warrantless action. Between the time of the death and the conclusion of the case, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected that doctrine as a constitutional justification. The litigation therefore required careful analysis of evolving constitutional law, the effect of that change on the pending case, and whether the search could be sustained on any grounds independent of the community caretaker doctrine. The case remains on appeal following extensive pretrial litigation.
Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies:
From 2014 through 2017, I represented multiple clients during revocation proceedings. Every revocation hearing is overseen by an Administrative Law Judge to determine whether revocation is warranted. I’ve handled multiple preliminary hearings in front of Court Commissioners. I’ve also handled preliminary family law matters in front of Court Commissioners.
Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation).
90+% of criminal defense work is non-litigation negotiation. I have experience negotiating with prosecutors as well as negotiating with adversarial attorney’s in family law cases. For the last two years I have been witnessing will signings on behalf another attorney. I have also represented clients during depositions.
Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: NA
Previous runs for public office: None listed
All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: None listed
Professional or civic and charitable organizations:
Sussex Lions Club, 2021-present
ATV 4 Vets, vice president, 2012-2015
Village of Sussex, volunteer, 2022
Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service:
I was a pro bono legal counsel for the non profit ATV4Vets after I stepped down as the Vice President of the organization. As legal Counsel I provided expert guidance to the organization’s President on multifaceted matters pertaining to the non-profit’s operations, including fundraising strategies and prudent allocation of resources. Furthermore, I demonstrated proficiency in drafting, reviewing, and editing contracts and letters of intent for grants
Quotes:
Why I want to be a judge:
My desire to serve the people of Wisconsin as a judge is rooted in my commitment to public service, the rule of law, and the constitutional principles that protect every person who comes before the courts.
I served in Iraq from 2004 to 2005 and spent seven years as a member of the Wisconsin Army National Guard. That service instilled in me a deep sense of duty, discipline, accountability, and respect for institutions larger than myself. It also reinforced the importance of leadership, sound judgment, and service to others. Those values have guided me throughout my legal career and would continue to guide me on the bench.
My military service, my experience as a citizen, and my work as an attorney have all strengthened my respect for the Constitution and the protections it provides. The Constitution is not an abstract concept; it is the foundation that safeguards individual liberty, due process, equal protection, and the rule of law. As a judge, I would have the responsibility to apply the law faithfully, protect the rights of all parties, and ensure that every person is treated with fairness, dignity, and respect.
Through my work as a defense attorney in Waukesha County, I have seen firsthand how important the courts are to individuals, families, victims, defendants, and the community as a whole. Court decisions have real consequences. They affect liberty, safety, families, livelihoods, and public confidence in the justice system. That responsibility requires patience, humility, preparation, impartiality, and the ability to listen carefully before making difficult decisions.
My experiences have also given me a strong appreciation for the rule of law. I have seen the importance of fair process, careful fact-finding, and decisions based on the law rather than emotion, assumption, or bias. I believe a judge must be firm when necessary, compassionate where appropriate, and always faithful to the law.
Wisconsin is my home. My connection to this state has been shaped by my military service, my work as an attorney, and my continued commitment to the people and communities I serve. I want to serve as a judge because I believe I can contribute to a judiciary that is fair, accessible, efficient, and worthy of the public’s trust.
If appointed, I would approach the role with humility, independence, and a deep respect for the responsibility entrusted to the judiciary. I would work each day to uphold the rule of law, protect constitutional rights, and serve the people of Wisconsin with integrity and fairness.
Describe which case in the past 25 years by the Wisconsin Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court you believe had a significant positive or negative impact on the people of Wisconsin.
Caniglia v. Strom is one of the most significant United States Supreme Court decisions of the past 25 years because of its impact on Fourth Amendment protections, particularly the constitutional protection afforded to the home. In my view, the decision had a positive impact on the people of Wisconsin by reaffirming that the home occupies a special place in our constitutional system and that warrantless government entry into a residence is subject to strict limits.
In Caniglia, the Supreme Court addressed the scope of the community caretaking doctrine and whether that doctrine could justify a warrantless search or seizure inside a person’s home. The Court unanimously held that the community caretaking exception, which had developed largely in the context of vehicles, does not create a broad standalone justification for warrantless entries into the home. In doing so, the Court reaffirmed a core principle of the Fourth Amendment: the home is entitled to the highest level of constitutional protection.
This decision is especially important for the people of Wisconsin because it provides clear guidance that law enforcement authority, even when exercised for public safety or welfare purposes, must remain within constitutional boundaries. The decision does not prevent police officers from responding to emergencies or acting when another recognized exception to the warrant requirement applies. Rather, it ensures that general concerns about safety or caretaking do not become an open-ended basis for entering a person’s home without a warrant.
The positive impact of Caniglia is that it strengthens both individual liberty and public confidence in the justice system. Wisconsinites should be secure in their homes and confident that constitutional protections apply equally, regardless of the nature of the investigation or the government’s intent. By requiring courts and law enforcement to carefully identify a valid constitutional basis for warrantless home entry, the decision promotes accountability, consistency, and respect for the rule of law.
The case also serves an important practical function. It gives law enforcement officers, attorneys, and judges clearer direction when evaluating searches and seizures involving a residence. That clarity is valuable because Fourth Amendment issues often arise in fast-moving and difficult circumstances. A clear rule helps protect individual rights while also assisting law enforcement in understanding the limits of its authority.
For these reasons, Caniglia v. Strom represents a meaningful reaffirmation of constitutional principles. It recognizes that the Fourth Amendment remains vital in protecting citizens from unreasonable government intrusion and that those protections are most powerful in the home. The decision positively impacts the people of Wisconsin by preserving privacy, reinforcing the rule of law, and ensuring that constitutional rights remain central to the administration of justice.
Two or three judges whom I admire and why:
Two Justices that I admire are Justice Anthony Kennedy and Justice John Paul Stevens. They are both esteemed figures in the realm of American jurisprudence, each leaving a lasting legacy characterized by their commitment to the principles of justice, fairness, and the rule of law.
I admire Justice Anthony Kennedy for his role as a pivotal swing vote and his dedication to upholding constitutional rights and liberties. Throughout his tenure, Justice Kennedy authored numerous landmark opinions that shaped the legal landscape of the nation. His opinions often reflected a deep appreciation for the complexities of individual rights and a keen awareness of evolving societal norms.
One of Justice Kennedy’s most notable contributions to constitutional law was his pivotal role in advancing LGBTQ+ rights. He authored several landmark opinions that expanded legal protections for LGBTQ+ individuals, including the historic decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide in 2015. Justice Kennedy’s eloquent defense of dignity, equality, and liberty resonated profoundly, marking a transformative moment in the struggle for LGBTQ+ rights and affirming the principle of equal protection under the law.
Justice Kennedy’s jurisprudence was also characterized by a commitment to protecting fundamental rights, including freedom of speech, religion, and autonomy. His opinions often balanced competing interests with sensitivity and nuance, reflecting a deep respect for individual dignity and autonomy.
Similarly, I admire Justice John Paul Stevens for his intellect, integrity, and unwavering dedication to the rule of law. Known for his keen analytical mind and incisive writing style, Justice Stevens authored numerous influential opinions that shaped legal doctrine across a wide range of issues. Furthermore, I admire Justice Stevens for his principled approach to constitutional interpretation, which prioritized fidelity to the text, history, and values underlying the Constitution. His opinions often reflected a commitment to safeguarding individual rights and promoting democratic principles. Justice Stevens’ respect for legal precedent and his willingness to engage in rigorous intellectual debate earned him widespread respect among colleagues and legal scholars alike.
Justice Stevens’ legacy is marked by his independence and willingness to evolve over time, a trait that all judges should strive to achieve. While appointed by a Republican president, Justice Stevens’ jurisprudence evolved toward a more liberal orientation during his tenure on the Court. His willingness to reevaluate his views in light of new evidence and changing circumstances exemplifies a commitment to intellectual honesty and judicial integrity.
In conclusion, I most admire both Justice Anthony Kennedy and Justice John Paul Stevens for their commitment to upholding constitutional principles, protecting individual rights, and promoting justice and equality, inspiring generations of jurists and citizens alike.
The proper role of a judge:
The proper role of a judge is to faithfully apply the law, fairly manage the courtroom, and decide each case based on the facts, the law, and the arguments presented. A judge must be impartial, independent, patient, and committed to ensuring that every person who appears in court is treated with dignity and respect.
Judicial independence is essential to that role. A judge must decide cases without fear or favor, and without being influenced by politics, public pressure, personal relationships, or personal beliefs. The judge’s duty is not to reach a preferred outcome, but to apply the law fairly and consistently, even when the decision is difficult or unpopular.
A judge must also ensure that every party receives due process. That means giving people a meaningful opportunity to be heard, carefully considering the evidence, applying the correct legal standards, and explaining decisions clearly. The courtroom should be a place where litigants, attorneys, victims, witnesses, defendants, and members of the public can have confidence that the process is fair.
Impartiality does not mean indifference. A judge should understand that court decisions affect real people and often involve serious consequences for families, liberty, safety, property, and the community. But empathy must be balanced with restraint. A judge must listen carefully, treat people respectfully, and still remain guided by the law rather than emotion, bias, or assumption.
The proper role of a judge also requires humility and discipline. Judges must recognize the limits of their authority. They do not make policy from the bench, advocate for one side, or substitute their personal views for the law. Their responsibility is to interpret and apply the law within the framework established by the Constitution, statutes, precedent, and the facts of each case.
Integrity is equally important. A judge must maintain the public’s trust by acting ethically, preparing thoroughly, being transparent in reasoning, and demonstrating fairness in both conduct and decision-making. Public confidence in the judiciary depends not only on correct legal rulings, but also on the perception that each case was handled honestly, respectfully, and impartially.
In sum, the proper role of a judge is to serve as an independent and impartial guardian of the rule of law. A judge must protect constitutional rights, ensure fair proceedings, apply the law faithfully, and administer justice with integrity, humility, and respect for every person who comes before the court.